Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

Kucinich also questioned why Democratic leaders didn’t object when President Barack Obama told them of his plan for American participation in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone during a White House Situation Room meeting on Friday, sources told POLITICO.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

It’s not impeachable – well, anything is “impeachable” I suppose – but it doesn’t meet the “high crimes and misdemeanors” thing …

As CINC – Obama is within his rights to make this strike. Internationally – I have a bit of a problem with the fact that we went to the UN for a “No Fly Zone” and, after receiving it – we immediately started attacking his ground forces! LOL.

That’s a bit like going to a judge for a “restraining order” against your spouse and then using that as justification to go to her house and smack her in the face!

Does not compute and, mark my words – the deception on the part of the Western powers won’t end well in this.

I guess this kind of vindicates Bush huh? I mean – HE DID have a NO FLY ZONE in place over Iraq before he started attacking Iraqi ground troops! LOL

The whole thing is “jacked up” in my opinion.

Anyway – I love the fact that Obama is now under extreme attack from his own lefty looney wing! This should be FUN to watch!

Nope. No vindication. As the narrative is developing, we’ll see that Bush went to war “for oil” while Obama is going to war for “human rights.” It’s gonna be a “good war,” war for all the right reasons. Obama will be the great liberator. You know, like Ronald Reagan. They’re practically twins.

Well, they’ve got a point. Bush had months of debate in the Senate, a vote passing an authorization for the use of military force, and a bunch of UN resolutions, and he still was threatened by liberals with impeachment. Obama, like Clinton, just pulls these foreign military excursions out of his nether regions with no national interest and no specific goal in mind, and the left thinks they smell like roses. He ought to be impeached for leftist hypocrisy if nothing else, but then that applies to almost all leftists.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

Kucinich supports a president when he’s acting anti-constitutionally, then cannot support him when he’s acting constitutionally? Mr. Obama has the authority as CINC, to commit the armed forces into these situations and Congress has the authority to fund the operation or not >60 days. Although I do not agree with the how of this operation, I do believe it is within his authority to do it.

Mr. Obama has the authority as CINC, to commit the armed forces into these situations and Congress has the authority to fund the operation or not >60 days.

ted c on March 20, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Based on the War Powers Resolution of 1973, I thought he only had that authority if the U.S. has been attacked or when there is imminent danger of attack. Does imminent danger to Libyan rebels qualify?

Well, that’s the argument Kuchinich, Inc, is making. I don’t think it flies, in the context of the War Powers Act, much less with the quite debatable rationale that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, a long dormant argument that was the basis for Nixon’s vetoing of it in the first place.

“I will simply never understand the view that the Constitution allows the President unilaterally to commit the nation to prolonged military conflict in another country — especially in non-emergency matters having little to do with self-defense — but just consider what candidate Barack Obama said about this matter when — during the campaign — he responded in writing to a series of questions regarding executive power from Charlie Savage, then of The Boston Globe:

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Kucinich, who wanted to bring impeachment articles against both former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney over Iraq — only to be blocked by his own leadership — asked why the U.S. missile strikes aren’t impeachable offenses.

I will admit, however, that Kuchinich’s argument will gain some weight when the 48 hours passes and Obama still hasn’t submitted his reasoning for the action, in writing, to both the Speaker and the President pro tempore.

That will be more interesting to me, the failure to follow the rules, the constant tardiness in his actions.

It almost makes me wonder if he went through school handing in everything late, if he was always in the professor’s office days before grades were due out, groveling for more time or ways to get the passing grade:

“Let me be clear, professor, you would have given me a solid B+ for that report, if I had done one!”

Well, that’s the argument Kuchinich, Inc, is making. I don’t think it flies, in the context of the War Powers Act, much less with the quite debatable rationale that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, a long dormant argument that was the basis for Nixon’s vetoing of it in the first place.

Dusty on March 20, 2011 at 1:55 PM

The War Power Act is indeed controversial, but I still think the Constitution demands he go to Congress. The Founders did not contemplate a system where the president could wage unilateral war, particularly when the U.S. is not under attack. Then again, I’m a lowly tax attorney, not a brilliant constitutional scholar like our undocumented president. I take solace knowing that former federal prosecutorAndrew McCarthy agrees with me .

I agree with you, and McCarthy, and I’m not any kind of attorney. That’s why I think it is especially incumbent on Obama to get his report in, on time and written very persuasively. I believe, however, that he won’t, which is why I added my comment (at 2:05).